Athletes need to be protected

Now that the college basketball season is over for local schools, a new season begins.

It’s a season with ill-defined boundaries, really, but it’s well under way.

It’s college basketball’s version of the hot stove league.

Call it coach season.

The target environment is rich. Winning seasons, NCAA berths, conference titles. None of it is enough to keep coaches out of an athletic director or college president’s sights.

And for every name that pops up on the ESPN Bottom Line following the words “fires head basketball coach …” there is a corresponding coach at another school who is mentioned as a replacement.

Not surprisingly, our state seems to hold some of the most fertile hunting ground.

Every men’s opening seems to include mention of Washington State’s Tony Bennett or Gonzaga’s Mark Few as a potential replacement target.

And Sunday the University of Washington decided not to renew the contract of its long-time women’s coach, June Daugherty, despite a 191-139 record in her 11 seasons leading the Huskies.

Such topics always draw fan interest, with the accompanying gnashing of teeth and high-decibel conversation on talk radio and Internet sites.

But there is a usually forgotten element to all this: The affect on the school’s – to use the NCAA’s preferred term – student-athletes.

Whether they are already enrolled and playing for a Division I school or only signed their commitment papers, the national letter of intent, the athletes are under the control of the schools.

A control that borders on servitude.

There are a lot of reasons a student-athlete – any student for that matter – chooses a particular college or university. But for the athletes, one of the most crucial elements is the head coach.

What does an athlete do? He or she works for the coach. That’s blunt, but it’s true. College athletes may play a sport, but to be successful, they have to work at it. And the jobs have long hours that never appear on the books.

You don’t think Derek Raivio became the NCAA’s best free-throw shooter ever just by working on it in practice, do you? No, he spent hour after hour in a gym perfecting his stroke.

Players want to play, and if the boss’ evaluation contains a phrase like, “you need to put more time in,” most college players will do it.

Coaches have bosses as well, bosses who entice them to work at an institution, and bosses who can end up firing them.

But coaches have more choices.

There was an out-of-the-past example in Monday’s paper when former Cougars men’s basketball coach George Raveling explained to our Jason Shoot why he left WSU.

“The only reason I left was because President (Glenn) Terrell was retiring and they were bringing in a new (athletic director),” Raveling said. “I didn’t want to work for a new A.D. But I was perfectly happy at Washington State.”

So off to Iowa he went, where he coached the very next season – for a lot more money. Nothing wrong with that. He was in charge of his destiny.

But players? A coach leaves, they are stuck. A coach is fired, they are stuck. A coach retires, they are stuck.

The school holds all the cards.

Want to get rid of an athlete? Heck, the scholarships are only for one year. Pull the money and give it to someone else. Sure, the NCAA has tightened that a little, with scholarship penalties for too many occurrences, but still, it’s not much of a deterrent.

If a Division I student-athlete wants to make a change to another Division I school? Sit a year. No playing. Forfeit a year of eligibility.

And how about the high school kid who just saw the coach he or she wanted to play for fired? Unless the university gives a complete release from the national letter of intent, it’s either attend Big School U. or … sit a year. No playing. Forfeit a year of eligibility.

Lewis and Clark’s Katelan Redmon signed a letter-of-intent last November to attend UW, one of six players Daugherty recruited for next year. Now Daugherty is gone, but the players are still bound by their commitment, which is with the institution, not the coach – even though the institution decided not to commit to the coach.

Sound fair?

It needs to be changed. There needs to be a grace period for these student- athletes. They need 10, 12, 14 weeks where they can examine other schools, weigh the cost of staying or leaving, and transfer without loss of eligibility or penalty.

The high school seniors need to be in control of their destiny, with a grace period as well, tied around the coach’s departure.

There can be limits, sure. The NCAA can make the coach’s new school off-limits for penalty-free transfers, eliminating a coach bringing his old starting five or her handful of recruits along as part of a deal.

But college athletics are supposed to be for the college athletes, not for fans, administrators or coaches. It’s time for the rules in this area to reflect that.